-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Do breeders even IBL anymore?
- Thread starter sbeanonnamellow
- Start date
sbeanonnamellow
Well-known member
Appreciate you GMT. I never heard of it like that before. Makes total sense to break it down further. Wish I could change the title now, I think I'm really looking for the IL's then.
These are topics I want to learn more about. If you have any literature recommendations I'm all ears bro. I got my eye on either Allards Principles of Plant Breeding, but that mofo is expensive, or Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding by Acquaah but hoping the one I found at the library by Hayward will have more than enough to soak in. I read on a post here a while back someones recommendations and those were some of the top ones.
There's some other stuff I'm finding too, books are fucking dope! I want this one bad https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319455396 but I'm a hardcopy snob and it's even more expensive than the Allard publication. Much love
These are topics I want to learn more about. If you have any literature recommendations I'm all ears bro. I got my eye on either Allards Principles of Plant Breeding, but that mofo is expensive, or Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding by Acquaah but hoping the one I found at the library by Hayward will have more than enough to soak in. I read on a post here a while back someones recommendations and those were some of the top ones.
There's some other stuff I'm finding too, books are fucking dope! I want this one bad https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319455396 but I'm a hardcopy snob and it's even more expensive than the Allard publication. Much love
I've never read a book on this stuff mate. A few members here used to post links to online papers. They forced me to read and learn, but lead me to what I needed.
You'd do well to wade through posts in the breeders lab, concentrating on discussions featuring Charles, kopite, tom and a few others.
You'll probably see me still learning stuff if they are old threads
You'd do well to wade through posts in the breeders lab, concentrating on discussions featuring Charles, kopite, tom and a few others.
You'll probably see me still learning stuff if they are old threads
troutman
Seed Whore
Wrong. IBC is an Inbred Backcross Line.
https://plant-breeding-genomics.extension.org/inbred-backcross-ibc-lines-and-populations/
Switcher56
Comfortably numb!
Simple, I am not a breeder!! Thanks for the reply folks
PS: I am sure I can come up with some acronyms that no one here has heard either, being nice is not a crime
This from a guy who thought a tetraploid was 2n 40 lol.
Read this
https://bbsrc.ukri.org/research/grants/grants/AwardDetails.aspx?FundingReference=BB/L011611/1
Stop reading stoners bro science
eyesdownchronic
Active member
repost *
Last edited:
eyesdownchronic
Active member
This is just not true.
Although cannabis breeding lingo is off in a number of other ways.
For instance bx should be bc. And in most ag breeding the term ibl is used more in terms of a population similar to OPV (open pollinated variety) as opposed to a specific individual or m/f pair which has been selected. generally naming is kept in f__X_ form as most ag breeding projects are using material past f10 so using the term IBL would just get confusing. often times it will be denoted as f3:f5 to denote an f5 individual selected from an f3 line. If something was bred to be an inbred backcross like you mentioned it would be denoted in f_bc_ form. exp. f3:f8bc4.
Another common misconception is the level of homozygosity achieved by making f_x_ crosses. The standard 50%, 75%, 88.5% etc. assumes that it is a single individual being used ie a selfing project. In a situation where one is using a m/f pair, let alone multiple individuals, the variation between individuals will lower the achieved level of homozygosity.
The reason to create an IBL is to make something that resembles the P1 mother you are initially starting with. This can be done a few different ways.
You can keep doing fillial line breeding which will in my experience take longer and there will without question be a dramatic loss in vigor, but more than like you will end up with a line containing 1-2 prominent phenotypes, if you followed proper selection and did so every single fillial generation.
Or you can do it the way GMT is mentioning, with less loss in vigor and you’ll probly knock a good 3-4 rounds off your breeding schedule to achieve the same goal.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat and achieve the same fucking thing.
You can keep doing fillial line breeding which will in my experience take longer and there will without question be a dramatic loss in vigor, but more than like you will end up with a line containing 1-2 prominent phenotypes, if you followed proper selection and did so every single fillial generation.
Or you can do it the way GMT is mentioning, with less loss in vigor and you’ll probly knock a good 3-4 rounds off your breeding schedule to achieve the same goal.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat and achieve the same fucking thing.
eyesdownchronic
Active member
Man people just steal your hard work so why not just release it in heterozygous form, make them have to work for it.
It sucks i know but its an old chesnut in the seedy seed game.
This is true, but shouldnt stop people from doing the breeding. just dont release the actual inbred line, and use it instead as a highly uniform elite parent. create a stable of homozygous parents to start making real f1s. Do people think that monsanto and syngenta release their parents in pure form. lol.
Take a look at what S....ANNIE did with his Jack. He may one of the very few dudes working lines the old fashioned way.
This was our conversation Troutman.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=8985250&postcount=3
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=8992876&postcount=9
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=9002928&postcount=10
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=9003086&postcount=11
I tried to be diplomatic with you in that thread.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=8985250&postcount=3
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=8992876&postcount=9
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=9002928&postcount=10
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=9003086&postcount=11
I tried to be diplomatic with you in that thread.
Eyes down, if you want to consider canna lingo as being correct, and the actual scientific lingo as being incorrect, then since we are talking canna, you are correct. Personally that's not a leap I'm willing to make, and prefer to try to harmonize our world with the larger outside world. Its for others to do their own research or make their own mind up as to which path to take.
Have you any idea what that would take? There isn't a homozygous line in existence.
eyesdownchronic
Active member
Yeah, I suppose not fully 100% homozygous. but 95-97% is attainable and is for all intensive purposes good enough. and significantly better than what is around now.
And it is also worth noting that with DH ie double haploids, full 100% homozygosity is attainable.
And it is also worth noting that with DH ie double haploids, full 100% homozygosity is attainable.
eyesdownchronic
Active member
not sure what happened between you and mr trout but I have always known IBL to be inbred line. If that is not the case then i stand corrected. I too prefer to work within the framework of the greater science/ ag world as a whole.
troutman
Seed Whore
I was just quoting what the article said. Those are not my words.
I also told you: "That's the title of the article. Ask the scientists who wrote it."
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=9002928&postcount=10
